|
bassguitarhero posted:This part of the tech bubble is basically where everyone has ran out of ideas so theyre running around going "we'll build a platform for doing x, but with an app" and that's it. How about an app that connects non-profits and people making apps that connect non-profits and donors?  
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
What about an app that helps you create disruptive apps? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:What about an app that helps you create disruptive apps? I'm like 90% sure that this has been posted itt already
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
How about an app that curbs disruption.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I'm like 90% sure that this has been posted itt already It's a fart app that makes a fart noise and generates court cases and legal bills.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Slaan posted:I'm like 90% sure that this has been posted itt already Don't disrupt my disruption disruptbro. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Here's an idea - maybe the company profiting off of literal child labour and the poor disenfranchised home cooks should foot the bill or provide the facilities to prepare food safely? "Thousands" of dollars is for sure not a minor amount for a poor grandma who wants to cook, but it's routine for any business. Especially when California already specifically has relaxed regulations for home-based food operations (that Josephine readily admits it's cooks don't meet) Spending thousands of dollars each to certify home kitchens is probably a non starter. I can't imagine many Josephine cooks generate more than say a couple hundred in revenue for the company in a year. Installing facilities for home cooks to go cook in might be a business or might not, but is very different from what Josephine wants to do. Hopefully they can work with the health department to come up with a streamlined inspection process or something. It's a neat idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
This is like when The Jungle came out and people were far more concerned about the possibility of people being inside their meat than of people working under conditions where parts of them could end up in meat. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Installing facilities for home cooks to go cook in might be a business or might not, but is very different from what Josephine wants to do. It isn't just about the facilities. It's about "everybody who's touching hot food for resale should have a food handler's license." Which schoolchildren not only don't but can't. Good luck teaching a school child to wash their hands every time they sneeze; half the time you can't even get them to cover their mouths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Spending thousands of dollars each to certify home kitchens is probably a non starter. I can't imagine many Josephine cooks generate more than say a couple hundred in revenue for the company in a year. Why should the health department compromise on safety standards just because there's an app maker that wants to make money?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:This business already exists in the Bay Area. http://www.kitchentowncentral.com/ Want to start a food startup? There's a legal way to do it! No disruption needed! The people who use Josephine don't want to run food startups, I don't think. They want to cook a few nights a week and serve people at home. Arsenic Lupin posted:It isn't just about the facilities. It's about "everybody who's touching hot food for resale should have a food handler's license." Josephine's cooks do have CA food handler's licenses, which are paid for by the company. The partnership with the middle school is a non-profit mentoring activity where teachers and students make the meals and all the proceeds go back to the school. The school cafeterias used to prep the food are the same commercially licensed facilities used to make school lunches. This part is a totally unobjectionable non-profit activity. Arsenic Lupin posted:Which schoolchildren not only don't but can't. Good luck teaching a school child to wash their hands every time they sneeze; half the time you can't even get them to cover their mouths. Have you ever worked back of the house in a restaurant? Do you know anyone who has? Ask them about their food safety stories and prepare to ROFL (then never want to eat at those establishments again, ever).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why should the health department compromise on safety standards just because there's an app maker that wants to make money? Well, there are potentially thousands or even tens of thousands of home cooks who would like to make money by inviting people to eat in their homes, and who make the long margin on that business. So there's that to consider. But really, the problem is that the law in CA doesn't contemplate small-scale operations that have a different risk profile than full scale commercial kitchens. Why shouldn't the law be ammended to permit safe small-scale production? Josephine is working within the system to try and bring that about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Well, there are potentially thousands or even tens of thousands of home cooks who would like to make money by inviting people to eat in their homes, and who make the long margin on that business. So there's that to consider. You're just begging the question here. You assume that CA laws are overly burdensome to small time cooks without any evidence and then assume that they can be changed to make small time home cooks both safe and cheaper. Since you have provided no evidence for this and knowing your posting history you will resort to "common sense" my response to you is this: everything you have posted on this subject is incorrect and naively stupid to the point where you should stop. Please stop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
His red title isn't ironic. You're not going to convince him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:You're just begging the question here. You assume that CA laws are overly burdensome to small time cooks without any evidence and then assume that they can be changed to make small time home cooks both safe and cheaper. Since you have provided no evidence for this and knowing your posting history you will resort to "common sense" my response to you is this: everything you have posted on this subject is incorrect and naively stupid to the point where you should stop. Please stop. Nice post and contribution you made here. duz posted:His red title isn't ironic. You're not going to convince him. A spectacular post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
You can cook and eat your own food, you can cook and serve food to your family, you cannot cook and serve food for money without qualifications and inspection. I see no need to change that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wehmMoazx0 A woman talks about what it took to license her home kitchen as a commercial kitchen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can cook and eat your own food, you can cook and serve food to your family, you cannot cook and serve food for money without qualifications and inspection. I see no need to change that. Not emptyquoting. I think it's a good thing that businesses are (when they are) regulated more strictly than individuals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Not emptyquoting. I think it's a good thing that businesses are (when they are) regulated more strictly than individuals. Don't the requirements apply identically to individuals and companies?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wehmMoazx0 A woman talks about what it took to license her home kitchen as a commercial kitchen. That seems fine? E: though she needs to wear a hairnet when she bakes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can cook and eat your own food, you can cook and serve food to your family, you cannot cook and serve food for money without qualifications and inspection. I see no need to change that. Josephine's cooks are licensed by the state and have their kitchens inspected by the company, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Josephine's cooks are licensed by the state and have their kitchens inspected by the company, though. I don't think the children at the middle school are licensed by the state. And generally kitchens need to be inspected to the satisfaction of the state, not the company.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think the children at the middle school are licensed by the state. The children are participating in a non-profit program for the benefit of their school called Growing Leaders. It's 100% legal and unobjectionable. edit to respond to your edit: The company is working with lawmakers to expand CA's cottage food regulations to cover the things its home cooks want to do. Seems pretty legit - they're taking the road of working within the system. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Legal perhaps, unobjectionable no. And regardless, the law generally requires you to have a state approved license and kitchen in order to operate a business out of it. This is right and proper and "this startup said I can totally do it" is not a defence. wateroverfire posted:The company is working with lawmakers to expand CA's cottage food regulations to cover the things its home cooks want to do. Seems pretty legit - they're taking the road of working within the system. No, they're doing something/telling people to do something illegal and then complaining about the law at the same time. That is not working within the system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Legal perhaps, unobjectionable no. Go read the article about the school program and the company's response to alameda county's health inspectors. Also, the school was doing its thing before they partnered with the company. LOL you're making GBS threads on a middle-school fundraiser.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
I have read it, they started a business based on doing something illegal, got caught, and are now spitting their dummy out about it. School fundraisers are fine, school fundraisers in partnership with a company that operates on the principle of acting before asking as regards the law, are not. Though I suppose it would amply qualify the children for public office. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jun 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I have read it, they started a business based on doing something illegal, got caught, and are now spitting their dummy out about it. You didn't read it. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:You didn't read it. Jesus. "In an email sent out to 2,000 East Bay customers last week, Oakland-based food startup Josephine announced that it would be pausing cooking operations in Alameda County. All non-profit partnerships, including Josephine’s partnership with Willard Middle School, have not been affected. The decision was made after cooks working for the company were recently served with cease-and-desist orders for illegal food sales by environmental health regulators. In the email to customers, CEO Charley Wang said the regulators told the cooks that they were “committing misdemeanors, punishable by jail time.” Wang said that Josephine “immediately informed the entire cook community of what was happening and scrambled to console and support the cooks that had been impacted.” As of May 6, Josephine had advised all cooks in Alameda County to pause operations to avoid further legal action. “Our cooks didn’t just lose a means of income and financial stability, they were also cut off from a source of pride and empowerment,” said Wang." Translation: "Hey guys go make food and we'll take a commission, oh no the state doesn't like it, the law is SO UNFAIR OMG. Well I guess you'd better stop because we didn't bother to check whether our business model was legal lol!" I also enjoy the substitution of "cook community" in lieu of "workforce" and that the liability is apparently entirely on the cooks not the company. Very startup of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"In an email sent out to 2,000 East Bay customers last week, Oakland-based food startup Josephine announced that it would be pausing cooking operations in Alameda County. All non-profit partnerships, including Josephine’s partnership with Willard Middle School, have not been affected. Umm... they got a cease and desist, told their cooks "Hey stop doing this while we figure it out with the regulators", and now they're figuring it out with the regulators. The cooks also, by far, make the long margin on this business. Edit: You seem really invested in being mad and self-righteous about this. Why are you so invested in that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"In an email sent out to 2,000 East Bay customers last week, Oakland-based food startup Josephine announced that it would be pausing cooking operations in Alameda County. All non-profit partnerships, including Josephine’s partnership with Willard Middle School, have not been affected. I think you missed out on much more damning parts: quote:Wang acknowledges that the Josephine safety standards are based on a system of trust, and its cooks are certainly less regulated than those producing food products under California’s Homemade Food Act, which, when passed in 2012, established rules for home-based food companies, also known as “cottage food operations.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Because disclaiming all responsibility to the workers and encouraging them to flout the regulations established for the public welfare and to ensure job security and safety for workers, while siphoning profit off the top is a particularly abhorrent form of exploitation and I have absolutely no truck for people who promote that, which is a lot of startups. Under any normal business model the company would be being ground into the dirt by the regulating body. But of course because they aren't actually employing people, merely allowing them access to the means of production in exchange for a portion of their product, it's not the company's fault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because disclaiming all responsibility to the workers and encouraging them to flout the regulations established for the public welfare and to ensure job security and safety for workers, while siphoning profit off the top is a particularly abhorrent form of exploitation and I have absolutely no truck for people who promote that, which is a lot of startups. I wonder why more states/Federal agencies haven't gone after them using RICO statutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I wonder why more states/Federal agencies haven't gone after them using RICO statutes. That would be too damaging for 20 minutes of cooking action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:That would be too damaging for 20 minutes of cooking action. I mean all of these "crowdcriming" companies, which encourage people to flout regulations and violate laws. They could promise immunity to all "users" who testified, and then it seems pretty slam dunk to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I mean all of these "crowdcriming" companies, which encourage people to flout regulations and violate laws. They could promise immunity to all "users" who testified, and then it seems pretty slam dunk to me. It was a swimmer-rapist joke, though I think the same gross "principle" of startups being startups applies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Who said that the big guys can't disrupt labor with the best of them? GE is now looking into killing the annual raise.quote:“People are looking for more flexibility, not more pay necessarily,” [Ranjay Gulati, a professor at Harvard Business School] said. “Relying on annual rhythms makes it artificial.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because disclaiming all responsibility to the workers and encouraging them to flout the regulations established for the public welfare and to ensure job security and safety for workers, while siphoning profit off the top is a particularly abhorrent form of exploitation and I have absolutely no truck for people who promote that, which is a lot of startups. ... so your problem seems to be that someone did a capitalism. Ok. I mean, what the company does is gives cooks access to a platform that gives them exposure they couldn't otherwise get and allows them to turn their skills (cooking, hospitality) into money without having to work for a restaurant or caterer or etc. The cooks can set their own hours, choose what they offer and when, and take the lion's share of the profit, be as intense or relaxed as they want to be... to all appearances it's a huge boon for small producers and makes them less dependant on exploitative capitalists (restaurant owners...and if you think restaurant owners are not worse about that than Josephine then ROFL) rather than more. Absurd Alhazred posted:I wonder why more states/Federal agencies haven't gone after them using RICO statutes. Why would they? What would be the point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It was a swimmer-rapist joke, though I think the same gross "principle" of startups being startups applies. Oh! Eww.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Why would they? What would be the point? To deter people from encouraging other people to violate the law in the name of their bottom line. You know, that thing law enforcement is for, particularly in the context of organized crime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:25 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:... so your problem seems to be that someone did a capitalism. Ok. The solution to exploitative business practices is not a different flavor of exploitative business practice. If you really want to let people receive the benefit of their cooking skills (other than to the extent they already do by cooking for themselves or their family) you can provide state funded, supervised communal kitchens where people can organize meals. Or you could subsidize people in teaching cooking to other people who don't know it. Or you can encourage people to cook more for their friends and extended families like... culinary carpooling or something. All of these allow people to utilize their cooking ability to better spread the benefits of that labor among the workers. And we don't even need a profit margin or to have massive amounts of unregulated business being done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2016 20:49
|
|